From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757323AbYG2KAw (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:00:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754488AbYG2KAo (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:00:44 -0400 Received: from smtp119.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.84.76]:35630 "HELO smtp119.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754842AbYG2KAo (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:00:44 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=ctG+nHeH2cPPKycRZ3r7ptsSefwYPVnsIxdrh1aHrqDoXkbDIT4+KBrkeL44nFBMCuv2RQYXDD0GDwOGKkh8TjLF3o4GVxW/X4VzA5rTNX8o2v2AvxHIMOI7D/1jzKm9yCqZs1RR3CJs8pcV8JpkpbvUHA/2d9GLIGX6dAmAn9g= ; X-YMail-OSG: Tf4Gv1UVM1nHmlp0ptwqiZkENKJI8dbo1zuEVDDXnsN8hsWH5b09bK_tDjlcb4GvyTFASv1dvPjRJ2dIUs8uqejmT8uYPtCYzEn96k.8fyu3qG_VCiV_PgDmkV3VvFYrv98- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: Nick Piggin To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector? Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:00:30 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Jens Axboe , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" References: <488E534F.2030204@goop.org> <200807291430.08220.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <1217325288.7563.2.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1217325288.7563.2.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807292000.30690.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 29 July 2008 19:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 14:30 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Not to mention the minor problem that it still deadlocks when called with > > interrupts disabled ;) > > __smp_call_function_single has potential though.. For reschedule interrupt? I don't really agree.